Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
